Putin boasts new strategic weapons will make US missile defense “useless”

Enlarge/ Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses the Federal Assembly at Moscow's Manezh exhibition centre on March 01, 2018. He announced a plethora of new strategic weapons that challenge the US' ballistic missile defenses.

Further Reading

The weapons, Putin said, were a direct response to the US' withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and its continued development of ballistic missile defenses—which the Russian government has argued undermine the strategic deterrent value of Russia's existing nuclear force. "No one has listened to us," said Putin. "Listen to us now."

A little something extra for the fallout

Putin claimed that the cruise missile's miniaturized nuclear power plant had been successfully tested last fall and that, when built, the weapon would have a "practically unlimited" range. An animation showed a computer-generated image of the weapon flying close to the ground, following terrain contours, flying over mountains, and out to sea, avoiding seaborne air defense radars on its way to a virtual target. A similar animation showed nuclear-powered torpedoes launched from a submarine, traveling "intercontinental" distances, and striking a US aircraft carrier and exploding near a shore facility. This was the first official public announcement of both weapons.

Flying reactors have been attempted in the past, but for obvious reasons they've never been deployed—while it has been demonstrated that a nuclear reactor could effectively power a turboprop or turbojet engine, the risk and cost of a flying nuclear aircraft are prohibitive, to say the least. Then there's the weight of the reactor (plus shielding to protect crew from dying before getting to a target, in the case of nuclear aircraft) and the accompanying loss of payload capacity. Russia conducted airborne reactor tests in the 1960s with the Tupolev Tu-119 "Nuclear Flying Laboratory" but abandoned development. The US tested airborne reactors and developed nuclear aircraft engines in the 1950s―including a nuclear ramjet engine for the Supersonic Low Altitude Missile (SLAM) that was tested on the ground but never flew.

Putin claimed the reactors used in the sub-drone and cruise missile were 1/100th the size of current nuclear sub reactors. That's still a fairly massive piece of hardware to put in a torpedo or cruise missile.

But wait, that’s not all

The third weapon, called Avangard, is a hypersonic maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV), described by Putin as being capable of high-speed radical evasive maneuvers while in flight and of delivering its warheads at over 20 times the speed of sound. It would strike, Putin said, "like a meteorite, like a fireball."

The Avangard is probably what has previously been called "Objekt 4202," also known as the YU-71, or the Aeroballistic Hypersonic Warhead. Unlike a traditional ICBM, the Avangard would get its boost from the new massive Sarmat ballistic missile and then skip along the top of the edge of the Earth's atmosphere under its own control and could maneuver around potential intercept points using its control surfaces as well as ramjet engines. It would be launched aboard a ballistic missile―the new Sarmat missile, now in testing, has enough range that it could be routed over the South Pole from Russia and strike targets in the US. A video for the Sarmat showed warheads from a missile launched on such a route falling over Florida—presumably targeting Mar-a-Lago.

The Sarmat itself is nearly ready for deployment. The ICBM is part of Russia's broad modernization of its nuclear forces, a modernization that hasn't just focused on weapons capable of striking the US. And so is another weapon Putin mentioned, the "Dagger:" an air-launched, tactical, nuclear-capable weapon intended to strike targets such as US Navy aircraft carriers while flying at Mach 10 to evade air defense systems on accompanying Aegis destroyers.

Some of Russia's modernization steps have skirted or potentially outright violated a different treaty with the US: the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed by the Soviet Union and United States in 1987. Russia has built new nuclear-capable land-based cruise missile systems that the US argues are in violation of INF. And over the past five years, as part of its rapid modernization, the Russian Navy has expanded its strategic capabilities, including one that's essentially a thumbing of the nose at the INF's fine print.

In addition to new Borey-A ballistic missile submarines, Russia has built the Buyan-M class of "missile corvettes," small ships that can carry nuclear cruise missiles. The Buyan-M is small enough that it is capable of launching missiles not just at sea, but inland from Russia's rivers or the Moscow Canal system, allowing a dodge around the terms of the INF Treaty.

A Buyan-M class corvette.

According to a recent interview with Russian Navy Chief Admiral Vladimir Korolev in the newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), there are five Borey-A ballistic missile submarines in various stages of construction right now, in addition to three that were built within the last five years. And six Yasen-class submarines capable of carrying up to 40 land-attack cruise missiles are also under construction.

The nuclear-powered cruise missile gap

The US government and the Department of Defense's Missile Defense Agency have argued that the ballistic missile defenses the US has built in Europe (in the form of Aegis Ashore), at sea (aboard Aegis-equipped guided missile destroyers and cruisers), and at home (the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptor) are really focused on countries such as Iran and North Korea—and not Russia or China.

But both Russia and China have objected heavily to US missile defense programs as they've crept closer to their respective homelands. And Russia's response, in a purely nuclear deterrence game theory way, is somewhat rational: if the US government felt that it could shoot down at least some inbound missiles from Russia, a certain US leader might become emboldened and believe that a nuclear war was winnable.

However, Russia's nuclear cruise and torpedo weapons are, from an arms control standpoint, not exactly deterrent-focused weapons. They're potentially first-strike weapons, capable of evading detection until the moment they strike. As fast as they are, they require long transit times and could be conceivably deployed in "loiter" mode, hanging out somewhere on station while simply awaiting a signal to strike.

As far as the Avangard goes, Russia is not alone. The US and China also have hypersonic weapons in development. China has been testing its Hypersonic Glide Vehicle since 2014, and the Chinese military has called it a "carrier killer" accurate enough to strike a ship at sea.

Share this story

Sean Gallagher
Sean is Ars Technica's IT and National Security Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland. Emailsean.gallagher@arstechnica.com//Twitter@thepacketrat

Idiots wasting money, that’s all the nuclear weapons arms race has ever been. One nuclear submarine of the Ohio-class can carry 24 Trident ballistic missiles, with at least 12 independently targeted warheads (475 kt yield); there are 14 such submarines in the US Navy alone. That’s enough to waste the whole planet; as nuclear power plants are likely targets, just imagine dozens of fully loaded reactors and spent fuel storage ponds burning to the ground, releasing massive clouds of radioactive fallout circling the planet.

Then you’ve got the bomber-carried nukes - and that system is almost redundant given what the submarines can do. Clearly, we could get rid of the land-based ICBM program entirely, saving $100 billion, and if we went back to negotiations with Russia, we could then cut the active arsenal to 500 warheads on alert each with a reserve warhead stockpile of 1000 and deterrence would still be unchallenged.

What a waste of money for such stupid reasons, that’s the US and Russia today.

Having subs, ground based and flying for redundancy is a feature not a flaw of the design (for the military at least, I'd prefer no one in the world have any but, it's too late.) It is a bit disheartening that there are so many nuclear weapons out there, but they don't want to put all their eggs in one basket as far as being able to launch.

That triad business is left over hype from 1950’s Cold War thinking. One submarine alone can waste the planet; we have 18 in different locations. That’s enough eggs in different baskets. Then, you’ve got the ones scattered around on jet bombers at unknown locations.

That’s precisely why the land-based ICBMS should be ditched. First, they’re redundant, and second, their locations are fixed, so they are known targets. Absolutely useless, a colossal waste of money, that’s the land-based ICBM program.

Weird, no one is commenting on the obvious reason for this: the Russian elections are nigh. It is time for Putin to project strength and pretend Russia is a factor in world politics. Russia is unlikely to be able to afford to build all this crap anytime soon.

However, it is a signal to the US that breaking treaties has consequences. Treaties that were broken because douchebuggery also has consequences.

Anyway, nuclear powered cruise missiles sound so stupid now I want to see the flight tests.

You laugh, but it's entirely possible. We're not citing project pluto for our health. This is a real thing that was proposed and worked on, and prototypes of the engine were built. https://youtu.be/w_SCuPId8KA

The nuclear powered torpedo sounds a lot more useful and realistic. Weight considerations aren't as big a deal in the water and it is inherently stealthier.

That said a nuclear powered missile against a naval target sounds like the most likely instance I've heard of where a major power would actually use a nuke. A tactical nuke strike against a single ship/ carrier group wouldn't have any obvious radioactive effects and you could argue that it wouldn't trigger all out nuclear war since it's clearly confined to a single area.

Jesus Christ. Putin, Trump and Kim must have like a whole four inches of penis between the three of them.

Are the citizens of any of these countries like "Yay, more fucking missiles!"?

Actually, in Russia, yay indeed. Putin has a very strong rating and lots of support from people and the stronger he appears, the better the ratings.Plus he can always resort to power when democracy, diplomacy and bribery etc fail - as was the case with Ukraine.

In the late 50s a Supersonic Low Altitude Missile (SLAM) was developed in the USA. It was truly a scary doomsday type weapon. Hopefully this isn't what the Russians are up to.

Reading about the Kanyon underwater cruise missiles, I think they are using SLAM type tech. I also seem to remember reading some articles about ionized radioactive particles being detected in Europe without a clear explanation. Could have been a test of one these weapon systems?

George W pulls us out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Putin responds by making missiles that can evade anti-ballistic missile defenses, and somehow everyone here thinks it's Trump's fault. Like the Russian technological development pace is fast enough to come up with these in under two years.

And they need all this stuff for what? Is there an imminent threat of US invasion that I don't know about?

All options are on the table for North Korea -Trump

edit for: we are also building up NATO troops on their boarder, and having our military hang around their border in the black sea.

To be fair, if they hadn't shown aggression to their neighbors, we wouldn't need to build those troops up. I have serious doubts about his claims though. Seems he's doing this more to make people hysterical.

I think he's just trying to goad Trump into pushing harder to fulfill his fantasy of a giant military parade, further undermining faith in American institutions by highlighting that we're just inches away from having a third-world tinpot dictator in the Oval Office.

Got news for you. The third-world tinpot dictator is already squatting in the Oval Office. At least I hear that is from where he tweets.

Weird, no one is commenting on the obvious reason for this: the Russian elections are nigh. It is time for Putin to project strength and pretend Russia is a factor in world politics. Russia is unlikely to be able to afford to build all this crap anytime soon.

However, it is a signal to the US that breaking treaties has consequences. Treaties that were broken because douchebuggery also has consequences.

Anyway, nuclear powered cruise missiles sound so stupid now I want to see the flight tests.

You laugh, but it's entirely possible. We're not citing project pluto for our health. This is a real thing that was proposed and worked on, and prototypes of the engine were built. https://youtu.be/w_SCuPId8KA

The nuclear powered torpedo sounds a lot more useful and realistic. Weight considerations aren't as big a deal in the water and it is inherently stealthier.

That said a nuclear powered missile against a naval target sounds like the most likely instance I've heard of where a major power would actually use a nuke. A tactical nuke strike against a single ship/ carrier group wouldn't have any obvious radioactive effects and you could argue that it wouldn't trigger all out nuclear war since it's clearly confined to a single area.

Project pluto is in there with the doomsday weapons. It's a nuclear powered ramjet, which means it was predicted to run for literally months before something failed and it crashed. Not 'ran out of fuel' mind you, just mechanical failure. "Man, a crashing nuclear reactor. Sounds messy" you say. No, that's not messy. What's messy is that it would be spewing radioactive vapour out the tail end the entire time it was flying. That's a design feature, by the way, not a bug.

It was proposed to have it carry a bunch of warheads, go screaming across the target country blowing shit up at near random, then fly in circles as low as possible at supersonic speed, to give a nice radioactive seasoning to everything (and breaking every window ever) before it crashed as a nice toxic dump. It was the big nuclear middle finger, adding psyops to just nuking the hell out of your enemy.

And they need all this stuff for what? Is there an imminent threat of US invasion that I don't know about?

To rile up support for the coming election would be my guess.

US missile defenses are not, and never have been any kind of threat or deterrent to Russia. We would need much (much) better performing defenses, and probably 4 orders of magnitude more interceptors to even stop most, not all, incoming warheads.

The scariest weapon announced is the submarine bomb delivery mechanism, which could theoretically deliver a massive thermonuclear weapon to the beach near any major coastal city undetected. This is the one that I think is actually real - I've heard about it many times before, and it's completely plausible.

"They will do everything possible to test us; but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our fleet behind, we will pass through the American patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest city, and listen to their rock and roll... while we conduct missile drills. Then, and when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Havana, where the sun is warm, and so is the comradeship. A great day, comrades. We sail into history."

And they need all this stuff for what? Is there an imminent threat of US invasion that I don't know about?

That's a good point, since Putin can take out the US president simply by releasing the recordings of their meetings and agreements to interfere with the US election process.

Maybe they too don't want Pence in the driver seat? He could be an unknown quantity that disturbs Putin.

Some people are convinced that Pence was chosen specifically because he'd be undesirable in the driver's seat, not because he was a good running mate. Insurance, see? Something Trump apparently thought he needed, which speaks volumes.

Now that SpaceX has lowered launch prices, we really ought to get to building SDI.

No point. It will always be easier to build more missiles than the build defenses against them. All SDI would do is convince Russia and China to build more missiles. What we need is de-escalation, not chest beating and ego stroking.

Idiots wasting money, that’s all the nuclear weapons arms race has ever been. One nuclear submarine of the Ohio-class can carry 24 Trident ballistic missiles, with at least 12 independently targeted warheads (475 kt yield); there are 14 such submarines in the US Navy alone. That’s enough to waste the whole planet; as nuclear power plants are likely targets, just imagine dozens of fully loaded reactors and spent fuel storage ponds burning to the ground, releasing massive clouds of radioactive fallout circling the planet.

Then you’ve got the bomber-carried nukes - and that system is almost redundant given what the submarines can do. Clearly, we could get rid of the land-based ICBM program entirely, saving $100 billion, and if we went back to negotiations with Russia, we could then cut the active arsenal to 500 warheads on alert each with a reserve warhead stockpile of 1000 and deterrence would still be unchallenged.

What a waste of money for such stupid reasons, that’s the US and Russia today.

Having subs, ground based and flying for redundancy is a feature not a flaw of the design (for the military at least, I'd prefer no one in the world have any but, it's too late.) It is a bit disheartening that there are so many nuclear weapons out there, but they don't want to put all their eggs in one basket as far as being able to launch.

That triad business is left over hype from 1950’s Cold War thinking. One submarine alone can waste the planet; we have 18 in different locations. That’s enough eggs in different baskets. Then, you’ve got the ones scattered around on jet bombers at unknown locations.

That’s precisely why the land-based ICBMS should be ditched. First, they’re redundant, and second, their locations are fixed, so they are known targets. Absolutely useless, a colossal waste of money, that’s the land-based ICBM program.

If you had communications scrambled you could be out of contact with the subs while the land based ICBM's presumably have hardened physical lines and multiple methods of communication. Also, if you get rid of them you have to deal with disposing them. Just keeping them around will probably cost less in the short term.

Idiots wasting money, that’s all the nuclear weapons arms race has ever been. One nuclear submarine of the Ohio-class can carry 24 Trident ballistic missiles, with at least 12 independently targeted warheads (475 kt yield); there are 14 such submarines in the US Navy alone. That’s enough to waste the whole planet; as nuclear power plants are likely targets, just imagine dozens of fully loaded reactors and spent fuel storage ponds burning to the ground, releasing massive clouds of radioactive fallout circling the planet.

Then you’ve got the bomber-carried nukes - and that system is almost redundant given what the submarines can do. Clearly, we could get rid of the land-based ICBM program entirely, saving $100 billion, and if we went back to negotiations with Russia, we could then cut the active arsenal to 500 warheads on alert each with a reserve warhead stockpile of 1000 and deterrence would still be unchallenged.

What a waste of money for such stupid reasons, that’s the US and Russia today.

Having subs, ground based and flying for redundancy is a feature not a flaw of the design (for the military at least, I'd prefer no one in the world have any but, it's too late.) It is a bit disheartening that there are so many nuclear weapons out there, but they don't want to put all their eggs in one basket as far as being able to launch.

That triad business is left over hype from 1950’s Cold War thinking. One submarine alone can waste the planet; we have 18 in different locations. That’s enough eggs in different baskets. Then, you’ve got the ones scattered around on jet bombers at unknown locations.

That’s precisely why the land-based ICBMS should be ditched. First, they’re redundant, and second, their locations are fixed, so they are known targets. Absolutely useless, a colossal waste of money, that’s the land-based ICBM program.

That’s not entirely true on, both counts. First, SLBMs simply don’t have enough fuel to “waste the planet”. Even fully MIRV’ed and (blatantly against international treaty), salted, we are are looking at maybe a continent.

Secondly, while yes, the ICBM locations are fix and therefore easy targets... that’s kind of the point. The enemy is forced to either waste nuclear launches destroying targets that are far from major population centers OR they will themselves be destroyed by those targets. Frankly, I think that is a more reliable system of defense than our “anti-ballistic missile systems”, which are about as helpful as launching multimillion dollar fireworks and praying for the best (and even if they did work 100% effectively, their engagement time is maybe a minute. Maybe less)

Most of this doesn't matter much, there's already enough nukes in the US, Russia, and China to destroy the world several times over. And it's been clear that missile defense is a bit of an expensive joke against that kind of arsenal. But it is a bit worrisome that Russia focuses so heavily on first-strike weapons.

Also, I'm not clear on how a nuclear torpedo-drone capable of doing 100 knots would be any more silent or difficult to detect than a nuclear sub. Is it because it can be at greater depths?

Weird, no one is commenting on the obvious reason for this: the Russian elections are nigh. It is time for Putin to project strength and pretend Russia is a factor in world politics. Russia is unlikely to be able to afford to build all this crap anytime soon.

However, it is a signal to the US that breaking treaties has consequences. Treaties that were broken because douchebuggery also has consequences.

Anyway, nuclear powered cruise missiles sound so stupid now I want to see the flight tests.

You laugh, but it's entirely possible. We're not citing project pluto for our health. This is a real thing that was proposed and worked on, and prototypes of the engine were built. https://youtu.be/w_SCuPId8KA

The nuclear powered torpedo sounds a lot more useful and realistic. Weight considerations aren't as big a deal in the water and it is inherently stealthier.

That said a nuclear powered missile against a naval target sounds like the most likely instance I've heard of where a major power would actually use a nuke. A tactical nuke strike against a single ship/ carrier group wouldn't have any obvious radioactive effects and you could argue that it wouldn't trigger all out nuclear war since it's clearly confined to a single area.

Project pluto is in there with the doomsday weapons. It's a nuclear powered ramjet, which means it was predicted to run for literally months before something failed and it crashed. Not 'ran out of fuel' mind you, just mechanical failure. "Man, a crashing nuclear reactor. Sounds messy" you say. No, that's not messy. What's messy is that it would be spewing radioactive vapour out the tail end the entire time it was flying. That's a design feature, by the way, not a bug.

It was proposed to have it carry a bunch of warheads, go screaming across the target country blowing shit up at near random, then fly in circles as low as possible at supersonic speed, to give a nice radioactive seasoning to everything (and breaking every window ever) before it crashed as a nice toxic dump. It was the big nuclear middle finger, adding psyops to just nuking the hell out of your enemy.

SumaTai wrote:

Stuff about SLAM

Yes, that's the Project Pluto we're talking about.

We need to expeditiously festoon space and the States with lasers! For Kanyon, a phalanx like system with cavitating bullets should do the trick at those speeds?

Actual scientists commented, that nuclear engines in rockets is a pipe dream. No one is using those, especially in missiles where it makes zero sense. It might make sense in spaceships, but not in the above case.

Here's a nasty thought. Aircraft and missiles are a really inefficient way to deliver a nuke. Sure, it's direct and the "bad guy" takes it on the chin, but everybody knows where to send the bill for all the broken windows. Take your time, false flag a few large(ish) cargo ships. Fill 'em full of whatever munition makes you smile harder and just float them into their harbors. Take the crews off (or not) and BOOM. Bonus points for hand wringing and coming up with fake intel it was all the act of some one who'd been giving you grief. Just a thought.

Actual scientists commented, that nuclear engines in rockets is a pipe dream. No one is using those, especially in missiles where it makes zero sense. It might make sense in spaceships, but not in the above case.

Got a cite for that? Because an awful lot of engineers were working on it at the time. (Also, if it's air-breathing it's a jet, not a rocket. Very different beast.)

Someone's no doubt pointed this out already, but you do realise that ICBM stands for Intercontinental Ballistic missile, right?

If it's non-ballistic, it ain't an ICBM!

the missile is ballistic, the warhead isnt

And does the quoted sentence include the word warhead? No, it doesn't.

Besides, last time I checked the warhead gets strapped to the top of the missile. Unless it falls off before the missile goes its merry way, it goes on whatever trajectory the missiles goes, ballistic or not!

Here's a nasty thought. Aircraft and missiles are a really inefficient way to deliver a nuke. Sure, it's direct and the "bad guy" takes it on the chin, but everybody knows where to send the bill for all the broken windows. Take your time, false flag a few large(ish) cargo ships. Fill 'em full of whatever munition makes you smile harder and just float them into their harbors. Take the crews off (or not) and BOOM. Bonus points for hand wringing and coming up with fake intel it was all the act of some one who'd been giving you grief. Just a thought.

I'm all for having more than 1 country have military superiority, I'm just not sure Russia is the best choice. Imagine what Hitler could do with the U.S. tech/army. There needs to be some balance in the world to keep 1 country from taking over.

Anyone got any idea how Russia can afford all these weapons programmes?

Not just the ones announced today, but - for instance, nine missile submarines under construction at the same time. It's economy is tiny by comparison with the US and China, it's smaller than Italy or Australis for goodness sake.

Has Russia discovered a way to do defence on the cheap (unlikely in a land of rampant corruption)? Or is this all fiction and Potemkin villages?

Could be a Potemkin village. It's possible.

However, the Russian military industry is insulated from outside influence, owned and controlled by the state (Putin). Thus, it is easy to make something cost a lot or very little since it's always going to be an internal state affair assuming you're not buying foreign shit in dollars. Or that's how it worked until a decade or so ago; all serious weapons were researched, designed, tested, and produced in Russia for Russia by Russian scientists with Russian knowledge.

Here's a nasty thought. Aircraft and missiles are a really inefficient way to deliver a nuke. Sure, it's direct and the "bad guy" takes it on the chin, but everybody knows where to send the bill for all the broken windows. Take your time, false flag a few large(ish) cargo ships. Fill 'em full of whatever munition makes you smile harder and just float them into their harbors. Take the crews off (or not) and BOOM. Bonus points for hand wringing and coming up with fake intel it was all the act of some one who'd been giving you grief. Just a thought.

A few headlines I found on DDG seem to prove someone already has the idea: "North Korea could sneak nukes into US inside shipping...", "The One Way North Korea Could Nuke America (Right Now ..." "Does North Korea have the capability to use cargo ships ..."

And this guy doesn't care if the explosion is attributed to him. Though, they've been quiet for a while, and someone else is threatening "evil imperialists" instead.

Putin wants to throw this bullshit out there because Trump, being the drooling idiot child he is, will latch onto it and make it much more than it actually is, and increase support for Putin in an election over there (it's this month, IIRC), giving him at least SOME legitimacy for running fixed elections.

It's propaganda, folks. It's bullshit. And it's bad for you. Ignore the little Russian behind the curtain. He's really just like Trump in ambition, only smarter.

The Trump administration on Thursday approved a massive new weapons sale to Ukraine, as that country continues to defend itself against Russian-backed separatists.

The decision represents a show of force against Russian President Vladimir Putin, as the United States and its allies continue to accuse Moscow of destabilizing eastern Europe and the Middle East through the use of military incursions and cyber warfare.

The $47 million sale includes 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 37 launch units, the State Department said, and it comes less than three months after the administration approved a similar lethal defensive weapons sale.

The timing of Thursday’s weapons announcement likely wasn’t lost on top administration officials. It came on the same day that Putin revealed that Russia has successfully developed “invincible” nuclear weapons that can “reach anywhere in the world.”

This is just political jockeying. Putin is up for election soon, and he is simply ensuring his victory is concrete with some muscle flexing. Again. Anybody worried about how terrifying this weapon is needs to remember we have had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all life on earth dozens of times over sitting at the ready for decades. This weapon, if it is real, doesn't really change anything.

It will be interesting to see what russia actually does. Their economy is still in poor shape, and such experimentation is incredibly expensive. Putin has to be careful not to tank his company country into another depression.

Also, for all the commenters wetting themselves with glee over "trump is a dictator LOL", you are only showing how normal trump is as a president. If trump was a true tin pot dictator, nobody would dare call him as such, at risk of them and their families being put to death. You are acting like the republicans that screamed that obama was a Muslim Kenyan, and look just as mentally challenged. You show how threatened you are by someone from another political party being in charge, making you chimp out like 5 year olds, and makes it more difficult to hold him accountable when he does do something worthy of condemnation.

It seems strange to me that Russia is being accused of promoting an arms race since America withdrew from an arms limitation treaty. Very strange. Now, when the west is littered with spineless, even whimsical politicians whose motives have lost the trust of so many, Putin, who seems to be a man at the top of his game, stands firm. People in high places seem to be upset with him for being what many would describe as a good Russian, when what they really want, is for him to be a good American.! It would appear that is not going to happen, so perhaps a little mutual respect all round would be appropriate. A heap less grandstanding soap box dribble from western politicians, and a lot more substance please.